Watchdog forces Iraq information from Goldsmith

The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, has been forced into disclosing further information relating to his decision that an invasion of Iraq would be lawful, following a demand from the freedom of information watchdog.

The question of the legality of the war under international law has been one of the most hotly debated issues surrounding the US-UK led attack, which the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, described as "unlawful".

Lord Goldsmith informed parliament on March 17 2003 of his opinion that an attack was lawful, but during the general election campaign last year, Downing Street finally released his confidential advice to the PM of March 7, which appeared more equivocal.

Following repeated demands to the information commissioner, Richard Thomas, who arbitrates on freedom of information requests, the attorney general's department was today forced to issue a statement on events between the two dates.

His office issued a "narrative" of the attorney general's thinking over the 10-day period that confirms that he hardened his opinion that an invasion would be lawful following requests from the chief of defence staff - and others - to confirm it.

Usually legal advice to the government remains confidential, but in the wake of leaks, and finally Downing Street publication of the March 7 advice, Mr Thomas agreed to FoI requests that further information be made available, although he described the situation as "exceptional".

Mr Thomas said: "There is a public interest in establishing the extent to which published statements [March 7 and 17] are consistent with fuller advice that had been given."

The attorney's general's office was then served with an enforcement notice upholding complaints under the Freedom of Information Act.

The notice required publication of a disclosure statement containing "the substance of information" which led to Lord Goldsmith's written answer to the House of Lords on March 17.

Mr Thomas said today that it was an "exceptional, complex and sensitive case" which had raised many issues.

He went on: "My conclusion is that the balance of the competing public interest tests calls for disclosure of the recorded information which led to, or supported, the concluded views which were made public by the attorney general in his March 17 statement.

"As the government chose to outline an unequivocal legal position, on such a critical issue at such a critical time, the balance of the public interest calls for disclosure of the recorded information which lay behind those views.

"By this means the public can better understand the background and rationale behind that published statement and the extent to which reliance upon those final conclusions was in fact justified.

However, he adds: "But I have also concluded that the arguments for maintaining the exemptions are sufficiently powerful that the balance of the competing public interests does not require the disclosure of those parts of the requested information which were of a preliminary, provisional or tentative nature or which may reveal legal risks, reservations or possible counter-argument.

"Nor is disclosure needed where it would prejudice the UK's relations with other countries."

In response, a joint disclosure statement by the Cabinet Office and the legal secretariat to the law officers said that "events moved quickly" between March 7 and March 17 2003.

Lord Goldsmith's original advice to the PM had stated that "the safest course" would be to secure a further UN resolution on the use of force, adding that this analysis "may, however, be affected by the course of events over the next week or so".

As it became clear that a second resolution was unlikely to be forthcoming, the attorney general "continued to reflect on the legal arguments", today's statement said.

In the following days the chief of the defence staff requested a "clear indication of the legal position" while the treasury solicitor, as head of the government legal service, asked Lord Goldsmith for a "clear statement as to the lawfulness of military action".

The statement continued: "The attorney general recognised therefore that he needed to indicate his clear view as to whether military action would be lawful and that the government would need to set out its position publicly."

On March 13, Lord Goldsmith told his legal secretary that, "after further reflection, having particular regard to the negotiating history of resolution 1441 and his discussions with Sir Jeremy Greenstock [the UK's ambassador to the UN at the time] and the representatives of the US administration, he had reached the clear conclusion that the better view was that there was a lawful basis for the use of force without a second resolution".

The statement added: "The attorney general made it clear that he had fully taken into account the contrary arguments as set out in his March 7 minute to the prime minister.

"In coming to the conclusion that the better view was that a further resolution was not legally necessary, he had been greatly assisted by the background material he had seen on the negotiation of resolution 1441."